NYTimes on Tacoma's Term Limit Prop
Tacoma has made the New York Times again. If you recall, our City Council voted on July 1st to put a proposition on the November ballot that would eliminate term limits. Well it would seem that we’re part of a national trend with communities across the country tweaking their term limit laws.
Does this sound familiar?
Some officials pushing the changes say the turnover created by term limits robs an elected body of valuable institutional memory. In Tacoma, four of the city’s nine council members will be forced from office by January 2010 after completion of their second four-year terms. That worries Councilwoman Connie Ladenburg, who has spent years pushing for a $2 million pedestrian and bike trail, among other projects.
“That is when I thought, ‘This is crazy.’ If I go away, and it’s not completed, what will happen?” she said.
As a result, Ms. Ladenburg shepherded a November referendum to overturn term limits. “The public wonders why we don’t get things done. Well, you have to be there awhile to get things done.”
Hmmm… Does national press give Prop 1 a better chance of passing?
Link to the New York Times
Previously on Exit133
Thank you, Jake
Filed under: General
14 comments
K Ken September 10, 2008
Many of the best run places, including not-for-profit organizations, have term limits. Wise institutions know that cultivating new talent and fresh interest is crucial to the long term health of the organization. This helps avoid stagnation and corruption.
While there is certainly room for debate about the maximum number of consecutive years one should serve in office, it is a bit scary that an incumbent thinks it is crazy to think of the City Council being functional without them. There are many ways to serve the community, whether elected or not. If a $2 million trail is a good idea, it will be championed by people both in and out of office. One doesn’t have to be elected to be effective.
After all, community organizers sometimes become presidential candidates.
M Mofo from the Hood September 10, 2008
How about that Tacoma issue of a proposed pedestrian trail?
I’m sure it was a major issue to pioneers in the thickly forested and vast grasslands Tacoma of the 19th Century. But now?
And as for lack of institutional memory, I doubt that is a real problem for trivial issues.
Political projects are the result of one party or another trying to persuade the general public of the truth or falsity of a matter.
That’s why even with a great written constitution it is very important that the public choose officials who can properly interpret such a written institutional memory. There are established truths that need to be safeguarded.
On a national level many of the basic standards of right and wrong or truth and falsity of matters were established long before the U.S. Constitution was written in the 18th Century. Those established standards are always subject to attack and revision. In contemporary America the usual tactic for attack and change involves rhetoric to confuse a public that is largely ignorant of history.
So, in one sense, there is a real problem of lack of institutional memory. But the lack of memory can be remedied by referencing the preserved writings of policy framers. The real problem, the real danger for society, the real limit to freedom, occurs when the individual fails to investigate the facts of an issue.
R RR Anderson September 10, 2008
in November the people shall rally to the voting booth, shoehorn(s) in hand to pry these hermit crabs from their city council seats. how many potholes can we fill with the asphalt of Ladenburg’s trail?
M Marty September 10, 2008
Vote No on Proposition 1
Term limits provide a choice for new leadership which is good for democracy and our city. Voting no on Proposition 1 saves our term limits.
Voters overwhelmingly passed term limits in 1973
Term limits were established when Tacoma was renowned for a lack of checks and balances and catering to insider special interests at taxpayer expense. This followed a historic recall of self-indulgent council members. In 1973, an overwhelming majority of voters made Tacoma the first city in the state to limit the terms of council and mayor.
“… smells of self interest.” The News Tribune June 30th 2008
“Putting the proposal on the ballot would inevitably smell of self-interest.” (Id.) The council placed this measure on the ballot at a taxpayer expense of $100,000, avoiding the public review process.
Term limits provide for new and diverse leadership
Elected officials without term limits become entrenched incumbents who are virtually impossible to vote out of office. Term limits provide for a more representative council.
Vote no on Proposition 1.
Quite simply, it is in our city’s best interest to have more people with community leadership experience, that’s democracy in action.
Ten-year term limits ensure we continue with a citizen council made up of real people, not career politicians.
If politicians can’t get the job done in a decade, then term limits level the playing field for others, allowing the best and brightest officials to move up and on.
Please vote no on Proposition 1.
J John Sherman September 10, 2008
Let not give this entire jobs-for-life credit to Ms. Ladenburg shepherding a November referendum to overturn term limits by her initial support for the Tacoma City Council Resolution No. 37527 because within Tacoma it took-just-more City Council members to also stipulate the Citizens of Tacoma wanted this placed upon the November ballot; therefore we must give credit where credit is due to all the Tacoma City Council members that supported Resolution No. 37527.
And, so I would not forget a made a note about it “Some City of Tacoma Washington Council Members Want Continued Employment” available at:
http://www.commencementbayopinion.com/?p=636
Enjoy the memory refreshment who did what for just us Tacoma Citizens.
S Squid September 10, 2008
I totally agree with the need for new blood, talent, ideas, interest, etc., in our local politics, but I wonder why this can’t be achieved through the ballot box. Just because the Connie Ladenburgs of the world may want to be Councilpersons-for-Life, doesn’t mean we have to continue to vote for them, right? On the other hand, I WOULD like to retain the right to vote for someone who I think is doing a good job.
Term limits were created to prevent a single individual from gaining too much power, to prevent a dictatorship situation. I’m not sure how that applies in a council situation where power is already distributed. Presidents, Governors, Mayors, I can see term-limiting. Shouldn’t we reserve this tool (which is a significant restriction on my rights as a voter) for where it’s really needed?
R rick September 10, 2008
I’m with Squid on this one. Well said!
M michael g. September 10, 2008
I’m also with Squid. Term limits reflect self-loathing and/or a lack of faith in democracy.
S Squid September 10, 2008
Can I be against term limits and still engage in self-loathing? Wouldn’t want to give THAT up.
K Ken September 10, 2008
Big accounting firms change the partner in charge of the audits of public firms at least every seven years.
In good systems of internal controls, the people in charge of handling money have mandatory vacations to reduce the chance of theft and fraud.
Local governments should aspire to the same standards. It isn’t a matter of self-loathing – it’s a matter of wise government.
P.S. When was the last time an incumbent lost a city council or mayoral election? I didn’t do any research, but the most recent I can remember was Karen Vialle in …. 1994?
S Squid September 10, 2008
Not sure I see the apples to apples comparison between a council member who has to stand for public election every four years and a hired public accountant who is not subject to a vote.
I totally agree though that we should aspire to the same standards, just think that the best mechanism for doing that is a public vote and personal vigilence.
Now if you were talking about term-limits for something like School Board, I’m all in for that. Apparently you can indeed engage in the most gross misconduct over multiple terms, stand for election against a highly-qualified opponent and still win there. Talk about incumbent entrenchment.
P.S. You are only referring to Tacoma elections, VOTERS in other municipalities do indeed turn incumbents out, and with reasonable regularity. Maybe there is something wrong with us in Tacoma after all (must not loathe self, must not loathe self).
PPS: Tacoma’s term limits were passed in 1973 after a period of exceptional corruption. How prevalent nationwid are term limits for city electeds?
R rick September 10, 2008
Yeah. What Squid said (again).
I think it was Thomas Locke who first proposed the accountant’s internal controls method of democracy and self governance. Or something like that. Touting the seven year rule of ‘partner in charge’ oversight a mere six years after the debacle of Enron, Haliburton, WorldCom, etc… which brought us the wonderful world of Sarbanes Oxley, doesn’t strike me as a credible solution for what is othewise a likely case of voter apathy and/or ignorance.
And now I refer back to @6 and @2 [although I am a fan of pedestrian/bike specific trails, generally speaking… especially in light of yesterday’s tragic headline of a Sumner cyclist killed, followed, ironically, by today’s headline of Washington topping the list of best states for cyclists]
T Throax O'Tool September 11, 2008
“Tacoma’s term limits were passed in 1973 after a period of exceptional corruption“
And what makes the current council members think they are immune to an apparently historical problem?
Besides, term limits force new blood into office. Do we really want a Norm Dicks or Strom Thurman in city council; serving longer than the average age of their constituents?
I like term limits simply because it forces change. Politicians are just like all other people: we don’t always like change, even when it’s good for us
M MM Russell September 13, 2008
If this were altruistic, the current council would have made this measure apply to the next elected council crowd. This is a purely self serving measure and should be see as such…
Squid misses the obvious, incumbents have all the power, they have the bully pulpit, they have the name recognition and the special interest groups.
Many smart people qualified for public office will not run or launch an uphill (costly) campaign battle simply because an incumbent holds office.
Term limits level & open the campaign playing field and provide more choices and a greater range of viewpoints & opinions.
Regardless of how good a single councilperson seems to be, they are only a single voice in the (council) crowd and the more voices and opinions heard in a democracy the better.
Term-limits do not diminish the concept of democratic (people) rule; it boosts the basic principals of freedom, diversity, fair-play and democratic rule.
VOTE NO on Prop 1